Do gun right advocates support law and order?

[Aunt Antifa]

Sigh. This isn't what DHS said. They said "White supremacists are greatest terror threat", which is a vastly different claim that "greatest threat". The terror threat is actually quite low compared to the risks of choking on your own vomit or drowning in your bathtub.
.

Ah, semantics. So: mea culpa on not being more precise.

Based on your threat assessment of their threat assessment, how high up does antifa/blm/marxist rioting rate? And vs loss of life via Covid?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Since I'm a data analyst in my day job, with an undergraduate degree in Mathematics and a graduate degree in Operations Management, I'm going to have to disagree with you. You're the one who just jumped to a conclusion about my understanding of Covid. I've been working 12 hour days since CNY because of Covid.

Sorry, I missed this. Now that you put it this way let me be clear: who gives a shit? I have no idea what you do, how, or if you’re competent. So don’t waste my time begging for validation with a resume we both know you can’t prove pro or con due to the nature of an anonymous message board.

Use your words in other words.

 

[Rucker61]

Ah, semantics. So: mea culpa on not being more precise.

Semantics indeed. There is a huge difference between "biggest threat" and "biggest terrorist threat", by at least three orders of magnitude.

Based on your threat assessment of their threat assessment, how high up does antifa/blm/marxist rioting rate? And vs loss of life via Covid?

For lives lost? Minimal. For damage to property? Significant.

For Covid, I'd like to see some analysis to net out what expected deaths from other causes were rolled up into the Covid count, but there isn't any reason to believe that well over 100,000 additional deaths over the normal annual death toll in the US were caused by Covid.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Semantics indeed. There is a huge difference between "biggest threat" and "biggest terrorist threat", by at least three orders of magnitude.



For lives lost? Minimal. For damage to property? Significant.

For Covid, I'd like to see some analysis to net out what expected deaths from other causes were rolled up into the Covid count, but there isn't any reason to believe that well over 100,000 additional deaths over the normal annual death toll in the US were caused by Covid.

Significant as compared to...? What makes the number significant? And why would property damage require federal intervention? is the outlaying of resources commesurate with the threat? I get that you’re still hung up on the semantics of the wording, but if the DHS is declaring white nationalist terrorism the gravest domestic terror threat, how does left wing rioting rank in comparison? What is DHS using as their metrics that you disagree with?

Your covid remarks are the opposite of data analysis. You ask for more data and then insist on a conclusion you’ve come to by saying “Nuh uh.” Is there a more technical term for “Nuh uh?”

This is why bringing up personal career is a bad call. You might think you’re grabbing authority, but all you’re doing is revealing that you either don’t have the gig or you’re bad at it.

 

[Rucker61]

Significant as compared to...? What makes the number significant?

Significant compared to cities without riots and vandalism. A quick search on "cost of 2020 riots" shows a common result of "most expensive riots in US history, so I would presume that would be signficant.

And why would property damage require federal intervention? is the outlaying of resources commesurate with the threat?

I don't believe I've made any claim that property damage would require federal intervention, but damage to federal property allows for federal intervention to protect. Great question on resources consumed - does any government need to complete an economic analysis on cost vs benefit before acting? Wouldn't that slow the response? Would that lead local governments to ignore damage to low property value neighborhoods and only intervene when more valuable property was threatened?

I get that you’re still hung up on the semantics of the wording

Well, one statement was the truth and the other statement was a lie, so yeah, I'll continue to differentiate those.

, but if the DHS is declaring white nationalist terrorism the gravest domestic terror threat, how does left wing rioting rank in comparison? What is DHS using as their metrics that you disagree with?

I consider the total terrorist threat to the US for any source to be so minuscule as to only be a political, not a public safety issue. More people die every year from choking on their own vomit than from all terrorist events. Terrorisim is a boogey man.

Your covid remarks are the opposite of data analysis. You ask for more data and then insist on a conclusion you’ve come to by saying “Nuh uh.” Is there a more technical term for “Nuh uh?”

You're absolutely wrong. If we accept the gross numbers of deaths attributed to Covid as the true impact to the death rate without any actual analysis incorporating analysis into how the deaths were attributed to Covid, is that attribution medically sound, is it consistent from geography to geography or from time period to time period, and are there lower than expected deaths from other causes that could be netted out against the gross Covid number, then we've not done even the basics with regards to statistical analysis of the impact of Covid to the death rate of the US.

My conclusion, IIRC, was " there isn't any reason to believe that well over 100,000 additional deaths over the normal annual death toll in the US were caused by Covid.". Do you disagree with this conclusion?

This is why bringing up personal career is a bad call. You might think you’re grabbing authority, but all you’re doing is revealing that you either don’t have the gig or you’re bad at it.

My words speak for themselves, and you're hardly the one to judge my abilities.[/quote]

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Significant compared to cities without riots and vandalism. A quick search on "cost of 2020 riots" shows a common result of "most expensive riots in US history, so I would presume that would be signficant.

Previously, you insisted that white nationalist terrorism was indeed a grave threat, but in context to other threats, probably not that grave. So what context are you using “significant” with rioting? And if loss of life isn’t an issue, how in the world can riotiing be a larger concern than something like white nationalist terrorists who threaten life?

 

[Rucker61]

Previously, you insisted that white nationalist terrorism was indeed a grave threat, but in context to other threats, probably not that grave.

Please cite where I've ever called white nationalist terrorism a "grave threat", or a significant threat at all?

So what context are you using “significant” with rioting? And if loss of life isn’t an issue, how in the world can riotiing be a larger concern than something like white nationalist terrorists who threaten life?

Is your measure that any threat to life is greater than any amount of other violent and/or property crime? Are larger threats to life more significant that lesser threats to life?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Please cite where I've ever called white nationalist terrorism a "grave threat", or a significant threat at all?

Thats not what the sentence you’re quoting is stating. Re read it and respond.

I don’t do the sea lion-ing thing. Boring.

 

[Rucker61]

Thats not what the sentence you’re quoting is stating. Re read it and respond.

" Previously, you insisted that white nationalist terrorism was indeed a grave threat"

This has never happened. Please stop making shit up.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

" Previously, you insisted that white nationalist terrorism was indeed a grave threat"

This has never happened. Please stop making shit up.

Why are you only quoting part of the sentence? Is it that the rest of it puts you in the precarious position of no longer being able to pretend and you’d have to answer the question? Is the answer to the question the thing that might be making you a bit schweddy?

 

[CLAX1911]

It seems like the question here is whether or not someone has the right to life. if you can't defend yourself against attacks then you don't have the right to life.

if that's what you believe you should just say that you don't believe people have the right to life.

 

[Rucker61]

Why are you only quoting part of the sentence? Is it that the rest of it puts you in the precarious position of no longer being able to pretend and you’d have to answer the question? Is the answer to the question the thing that might be making you a bit schweddy?

You still haven't shown where I've said that white nationalist domestic terrorism was a grave threat, regardless of the other parts of the sentence. It isn't. Period.

Here's my only claim about terrorism in this thread: I consider the total terrorist threat to the US for any source to be so minuscule as to only be a political, not a public safety issue. More people die every year from choking on their own vomit than from all terrorist events. Terrorism is a boogey man.

Nowhere have I stated or implied that white nationalist terrorism is a grave threat on any scale.

 

[CLAX1911]

You still haven't shown where I've said that white nationalist domestic terrorism was a grave threat, regardless of the other parts of the sentence. It isn't. Period.

The white supremacist thing is a conspiracy theory, notice how they are always so conveniently where they need to be. Antipower BLM does something wrong and it's white supremacists that have infiltrated the ranks and arm acting badly to hurt the image of such Noble organizations as black lives matter and antifa.

They will say that you are with them or you are their enemy.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You still haven't shown where I've said that white nationalist domestic terrorism was a grave threat, regardless of the other parts of the sentence. It isn't. Period.

Regardless of other parts of the sentence? That’s not how English or debate works.

I get it. You want to fight, you’re just not good at it. You may go now.

 

[Rucker61]

Regardless of other parts of the sentence? That’s not how English or debate works.

I get it. You want to fight, you’re just not good at it. You may go now.

Why should I defend myself for something I never even said?

 

[jaeger19]

The white supremacist thing is a conspiracy theory, notice how they are always so conveniently where they need to be. Antipower BLM does something wrong and it's white supremacists that have infiltrated the ranks and arm acting badly to hurt the image of such Noble organizations as black lives matter and antifa.

They will say that you are with them or you are their enemy.

The white supremacist thing is not a conspiracy theory. I deal with them in my practice...

 

[TurtleDude]

The white supremacist thing is not a conspiracy theory. I deal with them in my practice...

what exactly is your practice and why would you deal with them. I dealt with them -mainly when they refused to honor IRS summons and asserted they were "sovereign citizens"

 

[CLAX1911]

The white supremacist thing is not a conspiracy theory. I deal with them in my practice...

Not entirely no it's not there are definitely white supremacists. But they are exceedingly rare. The conspiracy is that they are common.

 

[Maidenrules29]

The white supremacist thing is not a conspiracy theory. I deal with them in my practice...

"White supremacists" are very few, on the fringe, and wield no power or influence in the general scheme of things. If anything BLM has more power.

 

[jaeger19]

what exactly is your practice and why would you deal with them. I dealt with them -mainly when they refused to honor IRS summons and asserted they were "sovereign citizens"

I own a healthcare business. several of the areas in which we own clinics have a fairly strong white supremist presence. They refuse to be seen by providers that are not white.

 

[jaeger19]

"White supremacists" are very few, on the fringe, and wield no power or influence in the general scheme of things. If anything BLM has more power.

Absolutely incorrect. White supremacy groups are way less on the fringe than they use to be. They have become emboldened by the current climate and have a lot more influence in policy making. White supremacist groups are not just the A holes you see in KKK robes marching in the street.. or folks with nazi flags shooting firearms in a you tube video. They are the white professional who decides whether you get your loan or not. They are the councilman who decides whether zoning allows you to expand your office square footage.

 

[jaeger19]

Not entirely no it's not there are definitely white supremacists. But they are exceedingly rare. The conspiracy is that they are common.

No.. they are very common. And now much more open and bold. Heck.. we had a president of the united states say that "they are good people".

 

[Rucker61]

No.. they are very common. And now much more open and bold. Heck.. we had a president of the united states say that "they are good people".

Does wanting to protect a statue of Robert E. Lee make one a bad person?

 

[aociswundumho]

Absolutely incorrect. White supremacy groups are way less on the fringe than they use to be. They have become emboldened by the current climate and have a lot more influence in policy making. White supremacist groups are not just the A holes you see in KKK robes marching in the street.. or folks with nazi flags shooting firearms in a you tube video. They are the white professional who decides whether you get your loan or not. They are the councilman who decides whether zoning allows you to expand your office square footage.

 

[CLAX1911]

No.. they are very common. And now much more open and bold. Heck.. we had a president of the united states say that "they are good people".

This is a conspiracy theory. The president said no such thing about white supremacists.
it's like you're all listening to some sort of Alex Jones type conspiracy theory. You all repeat the same incorrect thing over and over and over like it's somehow going to make it true.

The reality is white supremacists and whatnot are extremely rare. You want them to be common because they make a good scapegoat.